Tweet
If you think that i'm a fool then that is a great endorsement. Thank you.
Who?
It is obviously not just my posts you have failed to read properly.
I'm not entirely sure quite how durable DeMarco is, i'd say pretty durable though, time might give better evidence of that.
Let me show you the circularity of your argument. DeMarco is apparently not durable for your criteria of what makes a fighter durable, why? Because he was stopped by both Broner and Valero. I say 'Broner and Valero are very big punchers' and the reason that that does not count for you is based upon the evidence that DeMarco was stopped by Broner and Valero, which to you doesn't indicate that either Broner or Valero are big punchers. Can you not see the logical circle here?
The future matters because there is potentially more evidence to come in, Broner's display, or failure to display, power at welterweight may be evidence towards the sort of power he had at 130 and 135. If Broner can stop 147 pounders then that is some evidence of his power. The future is not a factor for Valero because he is dead.
The evidence at present suggests he's a great puncher (as in hardest hitting) to any rational person who can understand the relevant pieces of evidence. Now you actually acknowledge these other pieces of evidence, you even admitted that Valero was a big puncher but you keep asserting that because he did not stop anyone that you consider to have had a 'good' or great' chin that that renders him incapable of being considered a great puncher. Now unless you are equivocating on your meaning then this really makes no sense.
Here is one reason your argument is flawed, you are once again reasoning in a circle. Valero is not a great puncher because he did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or great' chin but how do you distinguish between a fighter with a 'good or 'great' chin and a fighter who doesn't have one? Either you use the sorts of evidence I am usng to determine a great puncher to determine whether a fighter has a 'good' or 'great' chin and if so then you have no reason to dismiss the same criteria in regards to big punchers. Or you are back in your circle because the criteria to determine who has a 'good' or 'great' chin is determined by how well they take the punches of genuine big or great punchers. But how do you determine who is a great or big puncher? By if they knocked out someone with a 'good' or 'great' chin. Logical circle!
Are you honestly not able to understand this? I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough.
I do think you are being a dunce, unfortunately the people who are backing you up don't exactly have the sharpest minds either.
You have ****phobic New England who will delight you with his tremendous grasp of the differences between heterosexual and ****sexual sex and its ramifications for the passing on of genes.
Then you have Billeau2 who likes to call me ****** for stating blatantly obvious facts and does so in a wash of largely incoherent prose.
Then RubenSonny who loves to state the same thing repeatedly but when you ask him for the evidence for his claim he conveniently cannot provide it.
And to top it off you have Poet who is an angry man with borderline personality disorder.
If the determination of truth was a matter of democracy then you'd win the debate, thankfully it is not.
Anyway I have had more than enough of this forum as it is a cesspool of irrationality. 95% of the time it is like arguing with a child, or worse, a pet.
Who?
It is obviously not just my posts you have failed to read properly.
I'm not entirely sure quite how durable DeMarco is, i'd say pretty durable though, time might give better evidence of that.
Let me show you the circularity of your argument. DeMarco is apparently not durable for your criteria of what makes a fighter durable, why? Because he was stopped by both Broner and Valero. I say 'Broner and Valero are very big punchers' and the reason that that does not count for you is based upon the evidence that DeMarco was stopped by Broner and Valero, which to you doesn't indicate that either Broner or Valero are big punchers. Can you not see the logical circle here?
The future matters because there is potentially more evidence to come in, Broner's display, or failure to display, power at welterweight may be evidence towards the sort of power he had at 130 and 135. If Broner can stop 147 pounders then that is some evidence of his power. The future is not a factor for Valero because he is dead.
The evidence at present suggests he's a great puncher (as in hardest hitting) to any rational person who can understand the relevant pieces of evidence. Now you actually acknowledge these other pieces of evidence, you even admitted that Valero was a big puncher but you keep asserting that because he did not stop anyone that you consider to have had a 'good' or great' chin that that renders him incapable of being considered a great puncher. Now unless you are equivocating on your meaning then this really makes no sense.
Here is one reason your argument is flawed, you are once again reasoning in a circle. Valero is not a great puncher because he did not knock out anyone with a 'good' or great' chin but how do you distinguish between a fighter with a 'good or 'great' chin and a fighter who doesn't have one? Either you use the sorts of evidence I am usng to determine a great puncher to determine whether a fighter has a 'good' or 'great' chin and if so then you have no reason to dismiss the same criteria in regards to big punchers. Or you are back in your circle because the criteria to determine who has a 'good' or 'great' chin is determined by how well they take the punches of genuine big or great punchers. But how do you determine who is a great or big puncher? By if they knocked out someone with a 'good' or 'great' chin. Logical circle!
Are you honestly not able to understand this? I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough.
I do think you are being a dunce, unfortunately the people who are backing you up don't exactly have the sharpest minds either.
You have ****phobic New England who will delight you with his tremendous grasp of the differences between heterosexual and ****sexual sex and its ramifications for the passing on of genes.
Then you have Billeau2 who likes to call me ****** for stating blatantly obvious facts and does so in a wash of largely incoherent prose.
Then RubenSonny who loves to state the same thing repeatedly but when you ask him for the evidence for his claim he conveniently cannot provide it.
And to top it off you have Poet who is an angry man with borderline personality disorder.
If the determination of truth was a matter of democracy then you'd win the debate, thankfully it is not.
Anyway I have had more than enough of this forum as it is a cesspool of irrationality. 95% of the time it is like arguing with a child, or worse, a pet.
Comment